Matt Kuchar was 100% right in that embedded ball argument

[Steele47]

> @ray9898 said:

> LOL...funny how everyone has jumped on this 'hate Kuch' bandwagon over some BS.

 

 

The guy created quite an inviting bandwagon.

[Lodestone]

> @"Birdie Mac" said:

> Kuchar was aw-shucksing his way through this thing, making it up as he went along, and when he realized he wasn't going to sway the officials to his side, he turned it into a comedy routine for his own amusement.

 

I don't think he was doing it for his own amusement, I think he was realizing the whole thing was making him look like a conniving doofus, so he was, at the end, trying to act like it was all a funny joke. I think your description of him "aw-shucksing" his way through it at the end is spot on.

[Lodestone]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @King_Slender said:

> > If you watch the replays they showed, Kuchar's ball lands, pops straight up and rolls back into its own pitch mark. There was no need to make an argument that the hop produced a second pitch mark - the pitch mark it was in was his own.

> There was no other pitch mark nearby, so it had to be his pitch mark.

 

a question for sui generis: If the ball had not bounced up in the air at all, and all of the players in the group agree that it was imbedded in its own mark, would it be necessary in such a circumstance to summon a ref before taking the appropriate drop?

I don't buy that there was no other pitch mark, and I don't buy that it rolled back into its own mark. If there were no other mark, then I think it would have been obvious to the group, and to the first ref that it had to have gone into its own mark. 3 players and 3 caddies and a ref would not have missed that.

[sui generis]

> @Lodestone said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @King_Slender said:

> > > If you watch the replays they showed, Kuchar's ball lands, pops straight up and rolls back into its own pitch mark. There was no need to make an argument that the hop produced a second pitch mark - the pitch mark it was in was his own.

> > There was no other pitch mark nearby, so it had to be his pitch mark.

>

> a question for sui generis: If the ball had not bounced up in the air at all, and all of the players in the group agree that it was imbedded in its own mark, would it be necessary in such a circumstance to summon a ref before taking the appropriate drop?

> I don't buy that there was no other pitch mark, and I don't buy that it rolled back into its own mark. If there were no other mark, then I think it would have been obvious to the group, and to the first ref that it had to have gone into its own mark. 3 players and 3 caddies and a ref would not have missed that.

 

The player, absent a referee, is responsible for making that decision. He or she would be wise to ask around for other witnesses to help him or her gather the facts, but it's not a democracy. (Should other players not agree, in stroke play there's always the option to play a second ball under Rule 20.) There's an Interpretation in R16 that's somewhat helpful:

 

16.3a(2)/1 – Concluding Whether Ball Is Embedded in Its Own Pitch-mark, It must be reasonable to conclude that the ball is in its own pitch-mark for the player to take relief under Rule 16.3b.

 

An example of when it is reasonable to conclude that the ball came to rest in its own pitch-mark is when a player’s approach shot lands on soft ground just short of the putting green in the general area. The player sees the ball bounce forward and then spin back. When the player arrives at the ball, he or she sees that it is embedded in the only pitch-mark in the area. Since it is reasonable to conclude that the ball spun back into its own pitch-mark, the player may take relief under Rule 16.3b.

 

However, if a player’s tee shot lands in the fairway and the ball bounces over a hill to a position where it could not be seen from the tee but is found in a pitch-mark, it is not reasonable to conclude that the ball is embedded in its own pitch-mark and the player is not allowed to take relief under Rule 16.3b.

[ray9898]

> @Lodestone said:

 

> I don't buy that there was no other pitch mark, and I don't buy that it rolled back into its own mark. If there were no other mark, then I think it would have been obvious to the group, and to the first ref that it had to have gone into its own mark. 3 players and 3 caddies and a ref would not have missed that.

 

So....you didn't watch the video?

 

[bscinstnct]

Kind of messed up how when the official walks away, he mumbles,

 

“El Tucan sends his regards”

[Lodestone]

> @ray9898 said:

> > @Lodestone said:

>

> > I don't buy that there was no other pitch mark, and I don't buy that it rolled back into its own mark. If there were no other mark, then I think it would have been obvious to the group, and to the first ref that it had to have gone into its own mark. 3 players and 3 caddies and a ref would not have missed that.

>

> So....you didn't watch the video?

>

I watched it a dozen times at least. I saw it bounce and not land in its own pitchmark. And I saw Kuchar make an a** of himself. Yes, I watched it.

[ray9898]

> @Lodestone said:

ched it a dozen times at least. I saw it bounce and not land in its own pitchmark. And I saw Kuchar make an **** of himself. Yes, I watched it.

 

....but you can see from the video there is no other pitch mark in camera view. The players were 250+ yards away from the landing area so I don't expect them to have the best view.

 

Without question....the ball landed....bounced backwards and rolled right back to the spot where it landed where the pitch mark was.

 

 

[straightshot7]

> @ray9898 said:

> > @Lodestone said:

> ched it a dozen times at least. I saw it bounce and not land in its own pitchmark. And I saw Kuchar make an **** of himself. Yes, I watched it.

>

> ....but you can see from the video there is no other pitch mark in camera view. The players were 250+ yards away from the landing area so I don't expect them to have the best view.

>

> Without question....the ball landed....bounced backwards and rolled right back to the spot where it landed where the pitch mark was.

>

>

 

What video are you going off of? The only one I've seen is on Instagram and not high enough quality to see anything definitively.

[Golfer4Life]

El Cheapo No Gimme Watch, Day 4.

[sui generis]

> @ray9898 said:

> > @Lodestone said:

> ched it a dozen times at least. I saw it bounce and not land in its own pitchmark. And I saw Kuchar make an **** of himself. Yes, I watched it.

>

> ....but you can see from the video there is no other pitch mark in camera view. The players were 250+ yards away from the landing area so I don't expect them to have the best view.

>

> Without question....the ball landed....bounced backwards and rolled right back to the spot where it landed where the pitch mark was.

>

>

 

Two referees at the scene independently reached the same conclusion that the ball was not embedded in its own pitch mark. You, however, in your La-Z-Boy saw something else? Too much Bud Lite?

[Lodestone]

> @ray9898 said:

> > @Lodestone said:

> ched it a dozen times at least. I saw it bounce and not land in its own pitchmark. And I saw Kuchar make an **** of himself. Yes, I watched it.

>

> ....but you can see from the video there is no other pitch mark in camera view. The players were 250+ yards away from the landing area so I don't expect them to have the best view.

>

> Without question....the ball landed....bounced backwards and rolled right back to the spot where it landed where the pitch mark was.

>

>

I don't know if you are being serious or not, but I'm going to assume you are.

If you look at the video you'll notice that the angle of the camera is at approximately 90 degrees to the fairway. Not exactly 90, but definitely not down the player's line of sight. The reason you think the ball landed in its own pitchmark is because the bounce of the ball takes it almost straight towards the camera from its first landing point. Hence, from the players' perspectives it would be a left to right bounce. Even from 250 yards away you can tell if a ball moved left to right off of the first bounce. "Without question"...this is why they never tried to convince anyone it was in its own pitchmark.

Also, Rickie said it was imbedded. He did not say it was imbedded in its own mark. When he finished the round he said they need to look at that rule. What rule? There already is a rule that says you get relief if it's in its own mark. Why would they need to look at that rule? Because everyone there knew it wasn't in its own mark, that's why. The rule that Rickie was obviously talking about is the rule that denies relief from a pre-existing pitchmark. Nothing else would make any sense.

 

Does that clear things up for you?

[SurfDuffer]

The video clearly shows that the ball ended up in its own pitch mark. Pretty bizarre that people are still arguing otherwise.

[Lodestone]

> @SurfDuffer said:

> The video clearly shows that the ball ended up in its own pitch mark. Pretty bizarre that people are still arguing otherwise.

Well, there is that. Don't walk too close to the edge of the earth.

[jdl]

The video clearly shows that the ball didn't ended up in its own pitch mark. Pretty bizarre that people are still arguing otherwise.

[cdnglf]

Heisenberg camera shows the ball simultaneously ended up in its own pitch mark and didn’t end up in its own pitch mark.

[johnnypro]

The whole thing is almost as preposterous as the "magic bullet" theory.

And Kuchar is a douchebag for trying to pull a fast one and wasting everyone's time.

What a weasel-y creep

[davep043]

> @"the bishop" said:

 

> I watched it unfold live and at one point the camera was far enough back that you could see a pitch mark similar in size and shape to the one Kuchar's ball ended up in that was to the left of that and back maybe a couple of yards at most.

Those who have said "That was the only pitchmark anywhere nearby, it had to be made by Kuchar's ball" apparently read right past this post. Kuchar never claimed it was his own pitchmark, perhaps he could tell from the tee that the ball bounced sideways a bit. I agree, he should have accepted the initial ruling, so he deserves some criticism. I wouldn't conclude that he's dishonest, as some have said, he was simply advocating on his own behalf.

I AM surprised a bit that the "divot relief" group hasn't chimed in. If we need help with a ball in any divot hole, we should certainly get help for a ball in any pitchmark.

 

 

[chigolfer1]

> @jdl said:

> Here's the video, again I don't see how anyone thinks it ended up in the original pitch mark. IMO it's clearly gone forward and to the right a bit after initial impact but it's not the clearest video. First replay is at 1:40.

>

> https://twitter.com/PGATOUR/status/1134240361394712576

 

Yeah, I mean that's not even what Kuchar himself was arguing.

[bscinstnct]

> @J13 said:

> I just dropped it on Youtube.

>

>

>

 

Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

[davep043]

> @illum1na71 said:

> What's most ironic about this situation, if there were no cameras on them everyone would have given him the free lift, clean and place.

 

Not a chance. Kuchar didn't even think this was his original pitchmark. And even if it WAS in the original pitchmark, he would have dropped, not placed.

[HitEmTrue]

> @bscinstnct said:

> Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

 

The first hop is backward. Easier to see if looping it over and over between 6 sec and 8 sec mark so the distraction of the sky is gone.

 

With that said, I don't see how anyone can watch that video and say that it certainly did, or did not, end up in the pitch mark.

 

 

 

[HitEmTrue]

> @davep043 said:

> > @illum1na71 said:

> > What's most ironic about this situation, if there were no cameras on them everyone would have given him the free lift, clean and place.

>

> Not a chance. Kuchar didn't even think this was his original pitchmark. And even if it WAS in the original pitchmark, he would have dropped, not placed.

 

But Kuchar was influenced by Immelman who gave (most likely) incorrect information on the scene.

 

Kind of surprised that no one has posted the entire episode on Youtube.

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @SurfDuffer said:

> The video clearly shows that the ball ended up in its own pitch mark. Pretty bizarre that people are still arguing otherwise.

 

It’s like one of those blue dress things. Which color do you see. We’re finding out how many people here need surgery or new specs. You can’t see exactly where it ends up in the video. But what you can see is that it doesn’t bounce very far at all. And then definitely goes backwards some and since it ended in a pitch mark. It’s pretty logical to assume it was its own. But. Since we can’t be sure that’s why I guess I begrudgingly agree with the call. But no way the ball bounces even a few feet. Much less the few yards some claim.

[bladehunter]

> @davep043 said:

> > @illum1na71 said:

> > What's most ironic about this situation, if there were no cameras on them everyone would have given him the free lift, clean and place.

>

> Not a chance. Kuchar didn't even think this was his original pitchmark. And even if it WAS in the original pitchmark, he would have dropped, not placed.

 

 

Watch the video. His opinion on that was caused by Trevor Immelmann running up proclaiming that it bounced forward and right a couple yards. Video clearly says it didn’t. Kuchar took Immelmanns word for it and concocted a story . Both were wrong.

[TheInfidel]

Karma is a killer.

[bladehunter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @J13 said:

> > I just dropped it on Youtube.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

 

How does anyone watch this and think it isn’t in its pitch mark ? Holy crap Batman. Let the hate run through you! Lol.

 

I detest Kuchars cheap actions. But look at it objectively. Pretend it’s your ball. Something.

[davep043]

What I see, the ball appears to bounce slightly toward the camera (forward and slightly right from the tee), then a second bounce slightly back towards the tee, and finally a little roll forward.. The lens foreshortens distances, so its nearly impossible to determine how far the first bounce was. Immelman's account roughly parallels what I see, and what I thought when I saw it as it happened live. I hadn't heard Immelman's account at that point. I believe they got it right, and the balled into a nearby pitchmark from a previous player.

[Lodestone]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @bscinstnct said:

> > > @J13 said:

> > > I just dropped it on Youtube.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Ha! From what I can see, the ball takes a big hop, then a small one, then rolls back into a divot but not the one that might have been made by the 2nd hop since that divot would be farther back.

>

> How does anyone watch this and think it isn’t in its pitch mark ? Holy crap Batman. Let the hate run through you! Lol.

>

> I detest Kuchars cheap actions. But look at it objectively. Pretend it’s your ball. Something.

 

I actually have always rooted for the guy, ever since he was an amateur playing in the Masters. I'll root for him probably less after watching this whole episode, but not really strongly so. I just feel like some of his "gee golly" stuff is more of an act than I once thought.

As far as objectivity, I am looking at it objectively, and I see a hop on the other side of the little mound that the ball eventually comes to rest on. It's hard to pick up because the camera loses the ball as it goes through the bright sky.

 

I think that finding makes a lot more sense when taken with other evidence, such as, nobody, not Kuchar, not his caddy, not his fellow competitors or their caddies ever claimed that it was embedded in its own mark. Six pros who make their living watching golf balls land and bounce, and not one of them said it was in its own mark. Never even discussed it. What seems clear to me from that point alone is that they saw something visually, in real time, that ruled out the possibility that it was stuck in its own mark.

 

We should probably let this go since nobody cares, especially the players who were there.

[HitEmTrue]

> @davep043 said:

> What I see, the ball appears to bounce slightly toward the camera (forward and slightly right from the tee), then a second bounce slightly back towards the tee, and finally a little roll forward.. The lens foreshortens distances, so its nearly impossible to determine how far the first bounce was. Immelman's account roughly parallels what I see, and what I thought when I saw it as it happened live. I hadn't heard Immelman's account at that point. I believe they got it right, and the balled into a nearby pitchmark from a previous player.

 

Now that I'm watching it with that in mind, I can see how it may have bounced toward the right first...mostly toward the camera, but slightly to the left of the camera location since camera appears to be ahead of the ball location.